I believe the T is planning on a new 100% low-floor type 10 to replace the entire Green Line fleet (minus the type 9s I assume). Or how about moving the Type 9 trains to Mattapan and convert the Silver Line to trolley operation for the rest and standardize the main subway operation?

The option orders on the 9's are also expansionary for introducing triplets in regular service, so it's not totally a GLX thing. We need 'em for capacity, especially for D's that get super-extended to Medford. And if AFC 2.0 for-real does have them getting into 21st c. proof-of-payment without reservations, running more regular triplets would be an enormous schedule speed-up and bunching solve for B's when crush load tanks the surface stop dwell times through BU.

As for Mattapan, the PCC's are already being funded for another rehab so that will not factor in any decisions to tap the +30 CAF options that buff out the 9 fleet to a maximum of 54 cars. Low-floors aren't any long-term consideration for the M anyway since all stops (except ADA-exempt Valley Rd.) have high-boarding mini-high platforms for 100% ADA access. When the Type 10 order sweeps all else off of Green and the ten year kick-the-can life extension on the PCC's comes up for another go/no-go decision they can easily set aside all 14-17 of the rebuilt 3700 cars to part out between Mattapan roster, work car conversions, and storage of several stripped parts donors safeguarding the maint side for a solid 1-1/2 decades. The remaining '97-era Kinkis are just the right fleet size for covering those extracurricular needs with generous safety cushion.

If they extend the Type 9 order to run triples, where will they overnight that expanded fleet? I'd (perhaps naively) thought the the answer was going to be the GLX's Inner Belt yard, but wasn't that extra yard space part of what was trimmed to keep GLX costs down?

And part of what would enable 3 car ops was just that everything'd be moving faster thanks to barrier-free / all-door surface ops (do you need the added vehicles if the vehicles you have are doing more turns per hour?) (Moving 10% faster, doing 10% more turns, was equivalent to growing the fleet by 10%?)

"Trying to solve congestion by making roadways wider is like trying to solve obesity by buying bigger pants."--Charles Marohn

The EGE wrote:10% won't even buy you enough capacity to handle the additional Central Subway demand from the GLX. It's projected to add 36,000 daily rides by 2030 - one-sixth of current Green Line ridership.

I think you're addressing a different point. The point of all the current surface lines going much faster is that the same number of vehicles can move enough faster that you could triple up some consists just with the cars that get freed up by faster operations

As for the GLX, The Type 9s only need to cover the new track miles. (if you took an aerial snapshot, the Type 9s are simply needed to be spaced along the Union & Tufts branches and allow the D to infill between Gov Ctr and Lechmere). They aren't really about ridership, they're about headways/spacing per track mile.

That the GLX is 1/6th of current ridership seems mostly-irrelevant for car needs since those 36,000 will mostly be filling (or be able to move to) seats that currently go empty at Rush Hour today (e.g D from Park in the direction of Kenmore) The 36,000 get loaded into the current line's "empty backhaul" for the most part.

"Trying to solve congestion by making roadways wider is like trying to solve obesity by buying bigger pants."--Charles Marohn

Arlington wrote:I thought the FMCB was looking at the next/Type-10 order being an industry-standard LRV, even at the cost of removing the tightest loops at Park or shaving the walls.

CRail wrote:Type 9s are supplemental to cover GLX. They aren't replacing anything. Type 10s are to replace the 7s and 8s simultaneously, and probably the PCCs too.

What are the odds that a massive Type 9 order could end up replacing the type 10 program altogether​?

It seems like going with the most advanced vehicle that they could fit into the Green Line's loading gauge as it currently is today would make far more sense than trying to jerry rig an all-low-floor modern caterpillar-style streetcar design to fit into the Green Line's *ahem* "unique" infrastructure.

And if you're going to go eliminating turn loops and shaving tunnels, then why not go all the way and switch to a platform/rolling stock setup like what the DLR in London has that could actually adequately handle the Green Line's central subway passenger volumes?

Bramdeisroberts wrote:What are the odds that a massive Type 9 order could end up replacing the type 10 program altogether​?

Zero. The 0700s on the Blue Line are already a decade old, perhaps this Chinese order shouldn't be limited to the Red and Orange lines! At some point you have to get serious.

Type 7s are getting their MID life rebuilds at 30 years old, they've easily got 30 to go and if they don't make that it's for no reason other than low floor accessibility. You're probably looking at 15-20 years before the FTA will be willing to discuss another grant for streetcar procurement and, let's face it, the 8s GOTTA GO! (Note the RTS buses surviving their low floor replacements) By that time the Type 9s will be as technologically obsolete as the 7s are now. Not to mention the Mattapan fleet will be the age of open cars toodling along museum tracks today. Now I'd love it if they were still in service at 150 years of age but, as I said, at some point you have to get serious.

Recarving tunnels? Well, at some point you have to get serious. You're talking 9+ digit expenses for what? A car that fits 8 more standees? Most stations are already long enough to accommodate 4 car trains. There's a much more cost effective way to add capacity than to rebuild a hole. Green Line is NOT HEAVY RAIL, let me make sure that came across clear: it is NOT HEAVY RAIL. All these attempts to operate it as such (but only sometimes) is making it more and more inadequate. The BEST way to improve capacity where it's needed is to do what MUNI did once upon a time and combine cars into trains (or trains into bigger trains) in the central subway and breaking them apart before they hit the surface. Introducing an operation like that could be done today virtually cost free. Combine that with a Supplimental Type 9 fleet and you've got a pretty significant improvement over the status quo, and without this nonsense of realigning tunnels.

In order to avoid custom vehicles that cost 2x the standard LRV, are delivered late, and last half as long, and derail constantly throughout their service life, like, you know, the Type 8s. The MBTA has a proven bad record at procuring custom cars. Just because the pattern has been that the even car-models suck and the odds are successes is no guarantee that the Type 9s will actually be winners. And with new industry-standard LRVs with tighter radii, I believe we're no longer talking 9 figures worth of ROW mods. If it is 8 figures, the payback could be as fast as 2 procurement cycles.

"Trying to solve congestion by making roadways wider is like trying to solve obesity by buying bigger pants."--Charles Marohn

CRail wrote:Type 7s are getting their MID life rebuilds at 30 years old, they've easily got 30 to go and if they don't make that it's for no reason other than low floor accessibility. You're probably looking at 15-20 years before the FTA will be willing to discuss another grant for streetcar procurement and, let's face it, the 8s GOTTA GO! (Note the RTS buses surviving their low floor replacements) By that time the Type 9s will be as technologically obsolete as the 7s are now. Not to mention the Mattapan fleet will be the age of open cars toodling along museum tracks today. Now I'd love it if they were still in service at 150 years of age but, as I said, at some point you have to get serious.

God, I hope that the 7's stay in service for another 30 years. They were such an iconic part of my childhood, and they really seemed like some of the most solidly-built streetcars ever to ride the rails in the US this side of the PCC's. Who knows, maybe MUNI will want them in 30 years to finally replace the PCC's and they'll get a SECOND rebuild to add inductive-charging supercapacitors under the floor for wire-free running or whatever else they're using in 2050.

CRail wrote:Recarving tunnels? Well, at some point you have to get serious. You're talking 9+ digit expenses for what? A car that fits 8 more standees? Most stations are already long enough to accommodate 4 car trains. There's a much more cost effective way to add capacity than to rebuild a hole. Green Line is NOT HEAVY RAIL, let me make sure that came across clear: it is NOT HEAVY RAIL. All these attempts to operate it as such (but only sometimes) is making it more and more inadequate. The BEST way to improve capacity where it's needed is to do what MUNI did once upon a time and combine cars into trains (or trains into bigger trains) in the central subway and breaking them apart before they hit the surface. Introducing an operation like that could be done today virtually cost free. Combine that with a Supplimental Type 9 fleet and you've got a pretty significant improvement over the status quo, and without this nonsense of realigning tunnels.

So do you predict that realistically we'll probably see an expanded Type 9 order replace the 8's and bump out the fleet to whatever the T needs for the GLX, etc, followed by 20 years of procurement silence until the T finally realizes that trying to adapt a Flexity/Citadis-style 100' long all low-floor design to the Central Subway will be a technical nightmare so ugly that it makes the Type 8 procurement look as straightforward as the 0700's and ends up going with some sort of evolutionary upgrade of the Type 9 (if they end up not being junk) which probably ends up replacing the Type 7's and serving alongside a rebuilt Type 9 fleet while adding capacity for the [GLX Woburn extension/GLX to Waltham via Porter and Watertown/F-line to Dudley via Park/Streetcar-ification of the South Boston Silver Line/whatever other extensions inevitably happen]?

I just have a hard time seeing the idea of the Type 10 as people here are talking about it making any sort of operational or logistical sense before, say, 2060.

We need streetcars with tapered ends. A quick look around the world and we see them everywhere. We also notice that a standard LRV largely does not exist. The notion that the Type 8 fiasco was caused by our tunnels is utter nonsense. It was caused by defaulting to the lowest bidder. Think of how much we'd have saved by spending a little more on a Kinki built Type 8. Again, we buy unique cars because we buy unique cars, we've even got a "type" naming system based on it.

Re: 10s. I suppose if they're really happy with the 9s they could just go back to CAF and say "hey build us more of these" not unlike what the T did with Kinki when they bought the 3700s. My prediction is that technology will advance by order time and the desired specifications by the authority will be different enough that it'll be an entirely new car. Again, it's not impossible that they bid out a 9.5 order that's the same car with a few updates, but I think they realistically expect enough of a time lapse to plan on a new order altogether.

In March, The FMCB was told "October 2017" for the first prototypes being tested in Elmira. How'd that turn out?[/quote]

Not sure how this new car is going to allow 10% greater capacity. It looks pretty much exactly like the existing Type 8s. Perhaps it has something to do with what appears to be 6 "flip-up" seats?

Also the dates are misleading. I assume they mean Winter 2018/2019 for fleet revenue service.

It also appears that they are retaining the cushion seats. This is unique to the Greenline since just about everything else in Boston is fiberglass (there are a few heavyrail/lightrail cars with uncushioned fabric covers).

Arlington wrote:In March, The FMCB was told "October 2017" for the first prototypes being tested in Elmira. How'd that turn out?

Also the dates are misleading. I assume they mean Winter 2018/2019 for fleet revenue service.

I bumped this thread because I'm most interested in the production & delivery schedule. Why would you assume they mean 2018-2019 when the FMCB is told twice (both on Page 3 and on Page 11) that it was "on schedule" for:- Oct 2017 Vehicle Testing (see Page 3 and Page 11)- Spring 2018 First Type 9 in passenger service (see Page 11)- End 2018 All Cars Complete (see Page 3 and Page 11)

I fear you will turn out to be correct (that things have slipped 6 to 12 months), even if, as of March the schedule was believed to be End 2017 testing and End of 2018 delivery.

That fear is based on the the silence from CAF and the MBTA (Google has no hits since March), but I was hoping that somebody could link to, say, a spy photo from Elmira of a Type 9 being tested, or some kind of update.

"Trying to solve congestion by making roadways wider is like trying to solve obesity by buying bigger pants."--Charles Marohn